They can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.

I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?

Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.

He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.

And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms of lives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

Of course a simulation is only a model of reality, and not reality itself. It can help in the decision making process, and even help you prepare for war.

A duel between champions is an ancient way of resolving war without large scale casualties.

I believe I heard the term "war of assassins" in a SF book. Perhaps a method of limiting the casualties to important people who are targeted for assassination?

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms of lives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.Of course a simulation is only a model of reality, and not reality itself. It can help in the decision making process, and even help you prepare for war.A duel between champions is an ancient way of resolving war without large scale casualties.I believe I heard the term "war of assassins" in a SF book. Perhaps a method of limiting the casualties to important people who are targeted for assassination?

Unsurprisingly, the important people prefer the currentsystem where other people are casualties. So that's that.

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms of lives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.Of course a simulation is only a model of reality, and not reality itself. It can help in the decision making process, and even help you prepare for war.A duel between champions is an ancient way of resolving war without large scale casualties.I believe I heard the term "war of assassins" in a SF book. Perhaps a method of limiting the casualties to important people who are targeted for assassination?

Unsurprisingly, the important people prefer the currentsystem where other people are casualties. So that's that.

It's also not that difficult to protect the "important people" and toreplace them if their protections fail, making them not so important asall that.

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms of lives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.Of course a simulation is only a model of reality, and not reality itself. It can help in the decision making process, and even help you prepare for war.A duel between champions is an ancient way of resolving war without large scale casualties.I believe I heard the term "war of assassins" in a SF book. Perhaps a method of limiting the casualties to important people who are targeted for assassination?

Unsurprisingly, the important people prefer the currentsystem where other people are casualties. So that's that.

It's also not that difficult to protect the "important people" and toreplace them if their protections fail, making them not so important asall that.

In the strategic game of chess, once your king is killed the battle is over.

Instead of using open violence, people may use information and psychological warfare, cyberwar, and covert operations.

States may try to use influence to control other states, rather than use expensive, unpredictable, possibly illegal open warfare to gain control over people and territory.

Also, people in sensitive positions can be turned, or hypnotised to follow the instructions of other states.

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins before using any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you people and natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise it would have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - a neutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensive capabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms of lives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.Of course a simulation is only a model of reality, and not reality itself. It can help in the decision making process, and even help you prepare for war.A duel between champions is an ancient way of resolving war without large scale casualties.I believe I heard the term "war of assassins" in a SF book. Perhaps a method of limiting the casualties to important people who are targeted for assassination?

Unsurprisingly, the important people prefer the currentsystem where other people are casualties. So that's that.

It's also not that difficult to protect the "important people" and toreplace them if their protections fail, making them not so important asall that.

This is a feature of one of Ringo's "Troy Rising" books. The Rangora go out of their way to target leaders of democracies with missiles (Kinetic Energy Weapons of city-busting size). Said leaders are in helicopters going as fast as they can - not so much for their own lives as to not be in a city when the missile strikes. The Rangora get most of western leadership and about the top four in the US line of succession, and are convinced that they have condemned western democracies to a sustained period of civil war while a new leadership emerges, because that is what would happen to them. Western democracies hardly miss a beat, with pre-determined succession plans working smoothly. Meanwhile missiles that might have laid waste to cities dig holes in countryside killing politicians.

As for alternatives to war - as far back as Thucydides you can see smaller states talk up the uncertainties of war - you might be bigger than us, and you might expect to win without trouble, but is it really worth the risk of you starting a war? I don't see anybody accepting and abiding by a substitute in a process so uncertain and so likely to reveal surprising outcomes.

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.He's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.And that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

method of limiting the casualties to important people who are targetedfor assassination?Unsurprisingly, the important people prefer the currentsystem where other people are casualties. So that's that.

Unless the system is Ancient and Codified by Custom and it's aMatter of Honour for the important people to be the ones at risk.

Cf. the ancient custom of the King leading his troops in battle.(Last Sunday the classical radio station played Handel'sDettingen Anthem, celebrating the last occasion when the King ofEngland led his own troops into battle (1743, War of AustrianSuccession).

Cf. also Piper's _A Planet for Texans,_ in which any citizen hasthe right to assassinate any public official he feels like doingin. This is supposed to keep said public officials from gettinguppity.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

ObSF: "Surface Detail" by Iain M. Banks.

And at least the start of Tepper's True Game nonalogy, though it pretty quicklygoes off in several other directions at once.

Dave, also see portions of Homestuck

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Or, they will cheat.

I'm remembering a story {Analog? Amazing? 1970s?}Corporations fight "wars" to settle disputes, withtech limited to the Napoleanic era. Anything introducedafter the Congress of Vienna is verbotten.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Or, they will cheat.I'm remembering a story {Analog? Amazing? 1970s?}Corporations fight "wars" to settle disputes, withtech limited to the Napoleanic era. Anything introducedafter the Congress of Vienna is verbotten.

Post by KevrobI'm thinking Mack Reynolds, as his "everybody owns a blockof stock as a guaranteed minimum income" idea for an alternativeto state socialism and market capitalism is at the back of my brain.

It is Mack Reynolds's, "The Mercenary", April 1962 issue of Analog.

--"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.â-----------------------------------------------------Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins beforeusingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Or, they will cheat.I'm remembering a story {Analog? Amazing? 1970s?}Corporations fight "wars" to settle disputes, withtech limited to the Napoleanic era. Anything introducedafter the Congress of Vienna is verbotten.

Post by KevrobI'm thinking Mack Reynolds, as his "everybody owns a blockof stock as a guaranteed minimum income" idea for an alternativeto state socialism and market capitalism is at the back of my brain.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Again, "Surface Detail". It's the Culture. It's Special Circumstances. Of COURSE they cheat.-Moriarty

Getting close to spoilers?

On the surface, the Culture were not involved till one of the warringparties cheated. I don't remember being directly told that the Culturecheated by ensuring that event but that was suggested below the surface.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

The No Game No Life series of light novels gets around it by havingdivinely enforced binding stakes for everything wagered in any game.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Perhaps there can be international, or interplanetary as may be the case, agreements in place. For example, economic sanctions against those nations who fail to honour the simulation agreement.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Perhaps there can be international, or interplanetary as may be the case, agreements in place. For example, economic sanctions against those nations who fail to honour the simulation agreement.

'Economic sanctions' don't work well against a group willing to use militaryforce to obtain what they want.

Post by Mike Van PeltA simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Perhaps there can be international, or interplanetary as may be the case, agreements in

place. For example, economic sanctions against those nations who fail to honour thesimulation agreement.'Economic sanctions' don't work well against a group willing to use militaryforce to obtain what they want.

Unless there's a semi-neutral third party who's vastly more advanced.

"If you think it would be bad if you lost this contest, if youcheat, we solemnly promise that it will be ever so much worse.You've seen the fraction of our capabilities that we've allowedyou to see. Your decision."

Post by a***@gmail.comsimulation agreement.'Economic sanctions' don't work well against a group willing to use militaryforce to obtain what they want.

Unless there's a semi-neutral third party who's vastly more advanced."If you think it would be bad if you lost this contest, if youcheat, we solemnly promise that it will be ever so much worse.You've seen the fraction of our capabilities that we've allowedyou to see. Your decision."

Sounds like something either Klaatu or Spookybot would say.Except, no, Spookybot would just take your weaponry away from youand let the belligerents shout at each other.

Post by a***@gmail.comsimulation agreement.'Economic sanctions' don't work well against a group willing to use militaryforce to obtain what they want.

Unless there's a semi-neutral third party who's vastly more advanced."If you think it would be bad if you lost this contest, if youcheat, we solemnly promise that it will be ever so much worse.You've seen the fraction of our capabilities that we've allowedyou to see. Your decision."

Sounds like something either Klaatu or Spookybot would say.Except, no, Spookybot would just take your weaponry away from youand let the belligerents shout at each other.

Post by Peter Trei'Economic sanctions' don't work well against a group willing to use militaryforce to obtain what they want.

Unless there's a semi-neutral third party who's vastly more advanced."If you think it would be bad if you lost this contest, if youcheat, we solemnly promise that it will be ever so much worse.You've seen the fraction of our capabilities that we've allowedyou to see. Your decision."

Sounds like something either Klaatu or Spookybot would say.

Petey... He'd zap you to the Andromeda Galaxy and draft youto fight the Pa'anuri (sp?). "Oh, sorry, they don't makedeals with anything made of baryonic matter, and they don'tconsider anything made of baryonic matter to be a neutral."

Or the more militant sorts of Organians from Blish's "SpockMust Die" after the Klingons got them severely ticked off.

Post by Mike Van PeltUnless there's a semi-neutral third party who's vastly more advanced."If you think it would be bad if you lost this contest, if youcheat, we solemnly promise that it will be ever so much worse.You've seen the fraction of our capabilities that we've allowedyou to see. Your decision."

Sounds like something either Klaatu or Spookybot would say.

Petey... He'd zap you to the Andromeda Galaxy and draft youto fight the Pa'anuri (sp?). "Oh, sorry, they don't makedeals with anything made of baryonic matter, and they don'tconsider anything made of baryonic matter to be a neutral."Or the more militant sorts of Organians from Blish's "SpockMust Die" after the Klingons got them severely ticked off.

Or Halt.

The Commonweal's entire raison d'etre is half made up of "no rule bysorcerers here", and another half "no conquest", with a third half of "nobodygets to think they're special, or they don't pass the test of the Shape ofPeace" involved.

But.

The sorcerers are there. And so is the Line, which practices, recruits, andtrains very hard to have the multiple nasty forms of force they can use andwar they can wage NOT end up as conquest, either outside or inside theCommonweal.

So it ends up as "Don't plot anything that would force the Line or theTwelve to get involved, or you might just find out what OTHER resources thestate has".

Dave, it helps that in the Bad Old Days outside, pretty much the standard ofinteraction between neighboring hegemonies is "try very hard to conquer andabsorb them before they can do the same to you"; actual diplomacy hasn't beenvery useful for the last quarter-million years

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Post by Mike Van PeltUnless there's a semi-neutral third party who's vastly more advanced."If you think it would be bad if you lost this contest, if youcheat, we solemnly promise that it will be ever so much worse.You've seen the fraction of our capabilities that we've allowedyou to see. Your decision."

Sounds like something either Klaatu or Spookybot would say.

Petey... He'd zap you to the Andromeda Galaxy and draft youto fight the Pa'anuri (sp?). "Oh, sorry, they don't makedeals with anything made of baryonic matter, and they don'tconsider anything made of baryonic matter to be a neutral."Or the more militant sorts of Organians from Blish's "SpockMust Die" after the Klingons got them severely ticked off.

Or Halt.The Commonweal's entire raison d'etre is half made up of "no rule bysorcerers here", and another half "no conquest", with a third half of "nobodygets to think they're special, or they don't pass the test of the Shape ofPeace" involved.But.The sorcerers are there. And so is the Line, which practices, recruits, andtrains very hard to have the multiple nasty forms of force they can use andwar they can wage NOT end up as conquest, either outside or inside theCommonweal.So it ends up as "Don't plot anything that would force the Line or theTwelve to get involved, or you might just find out what OTHER resources thestate has".Dave, it helps that in the Bad Old Days outside, pretty much the standard ofinteraction between neighboring hegemonies is "try very hard to conquer andabsorb them before they can do the same to you"; actual diplomacy hasn't beenvery useful for the last quarter-million years

Everything you say is true.

Nonetheless, I *like* Halt. I'd trust Halt anywhere, which mightget me killed, but that would be preferable to the alternative.Halt appears on the second page of _A Succession of Bad Days_,without any name being named, and my immediate reaction was, "Oh,Halt's here; everything's going to be all right."

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the cost of war, in terms oflives, military equipment, damage to infrastructure etc.

A simulated contest might work if the stakes aren't too high.If not, the loser of the simulation is likely to decide theymight as well make it real.

Perhaps there can be international, or interplanetary as may be the case, agreements in place. For example, economic sanctions against those nations who fail to honour the simulation agreement.

'Economic sanctions' don't work well against a group willing to use militaryforce to obtain what they want.

If the motive for the military action is economic, a cost benefit analysis might show that they have more to loose by going to war, even if they were lucky enough to win the war.

But I am actually against economic sanctions in general because they hurt much of the common people. Perhaps more targeted actions on the military and political decision makers, like freezing of funds or accounts, and limited travel rights. This will require global or universal cooperation.

much of the common people. Perhaps more targeted actions on the military andpolitical decision makers, like freezing of funds or accounts, and limitedtravel rights. This will require global or universal cooperation.

And I am JUST now realizing that ALal desperately wants to read Ada Palmer'sTerra Ignota series, starting with _Too Like the Lightning_.

Dave, book four is not yet out. alas.

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins beforeusing any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you peopleand natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise itwould have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - aneutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensivecapabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.

I think that is Gordon R. Dickson's _The Hour of the Horde_.

Post by David JohnstonHe's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.

I don't believe any of the stories where random attacks baffles militarycomputers. Or in this particular case, changes the situation fromautomatic defeat to a victory.

Post by David JohnstonAnd that of course is the crucial flaw in deciding who wins before usingany weapon. Simulations are inherently limited in accounting for allthe variables, especially the intangible ones.

They are limited to what their designers can think of, that is true.

--"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.â-----------------------------------------------------Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

Post by a***@gmail.comThey can run realistic simulations of combat, and decide who wins beforeusing any weapon. War is usually over territory, which gives you peopleand natural resources. Therefore this will be spoils of war.I am sure that there are many problems to this approach, otherwise itwould have been implemented already. Which nation makes the simulator - aneutral nation? What are the risks in declaring your offensivecapabilities in detail?Still it can save lives and money. Has anything like this been explored in SF?Abhinav LalWriter & Investor"Are you beast, or man?"

The Dueling Machine isn't the same thing since it isn't simulatingwarfare between the sides. I think Silverberg once wrote a novel wherewhere there was going to be a big battle and the guys in charge of thevast galactic alliance invited one human to take part. He's assigned tothe smallest class of ship and discovers to his dismay that the shipcrewed with other representatives of the most minor and primitivespecies in the alliance will not actually be fighting, but are justthere to provide a tiny bit of extra psychic energy for the onesactually doing the fighting.

I think that is Gordon R. Dickson's _The Hour of the Horde_.

Post by David JohnstonHe's even more distressed when he discovers not even that will happenbecause the leading races ran the simulations and determined that theywere going to lose, so they were surrendering without a fight ala SunTzu, so he and his fellow primitives pull a Leeroy Jenkins and chargethe enemy fleet, so confusing the enemy that all the calculations werethrown off, and an actual fight breaks out, leading to victory over theinvaders.

It's been a long time since I read the book, but I thought it was their magical "overdrive" powers, not included in the calculation because the senior races had long lost these, that tipped the balance. Once the horde had been weakened, the computers said it was time to attack.

Post by Robert WoodwardI don't believe any of the stories where random attacks baffles militarycomputers. Or in this particular case, changes the situation fromautomatic defeat to a victory.

Reminds me of a question I often get from non-chessplayers:

"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

Which leaves me torn between two answers:

"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

and

"I am indebted to you for demonstrating that there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense".

Post by Robert WoodwardI don't believe any of the stories where random attacks baffles militarycomputers. Or in this particular case, changes the situation fromautomatic defeat to a victory.

"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?""I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that couldprovoke such a question."

Charles Baggage? (IIRC, he had already grasped GIGO).

Post by William Hydeand"I am indebted to you for demonstrating that there is no such thing asunutterable nonsense".

Don't recognize this one; Google wasn't much help as well. It did coughup claims that this is quote from a House of Lords debate. Thus, is thisthe 1st Earl of Beaconsfield (aka Benjamin Disraeli)?

--"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.â-----------------------------------------------------Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

That's either a typo, or a quintessentially Englishinsult as a nickname. :)Since "g" is so close to "b" on my keyboard, I'mgoing to guess "typo."

Yes, just one key down on a diagonal. I'll go with that.

I've just been rereading an old post on typos, including areminiscence about one of Poul Anderson's stories in which he hadvan Rijn talking about "this news that's got eggbeaters going ineverybody's guts." Somehow, the typesetter morphed that into"nuts." Poul decided that was an acceptable van Rijnism and leftit in.

That's either a typo, or a quintessentially Englishinsult as a nickname. :)Since "g" is so close to "b" on my keyboard, I'mgoing to guess "typo."

Yes, just one key down on a diagonal. I'll go with that.I've just been rereading an old post on typos, including areminiscence about one of Poul Anderson's stories in which he hadvan Rijn talking about "this news that's got eggbeaters going ineverybody's guts." Somehow, the typesetter morphed that into"nuts." Poul decided that was an acceptable van Rijnism and leftit in.

"nuts" sounds more like van Rijn anyway.

Maybe it was a Monotype typesetter--that has QWERTY keyboard but withthe keys on a nearly rectangluar grid so G and N are diagonallyadjacent.

That's either a typo, or a quintessentially Englishinsult as a nickname. :)Since "g" is so close to "b" on my keyboard, I'mgoing to guess "typo."

Yes, just one key down on a diagonal. I'll go with that.I've just been rereading an old post on typos, including areminiscence about one of Poul Anderson's stories in which he hadvan Rijn talking about "this news that's got eggbeaters going ineverybody's guts." Somehow, the typesetter morphed that into"nuts." Poul decided that was an acceptable van Rijnism and leftit in.

"nuts" sounds more like van Rijn anyway.

Yup.

Post by J. ClarkeMaybe it was a Monotype typesetter--that has QWERTY keyboard but withthe keys on a nearly rectangluar grid so G and N are diagonallyadjacent.

Could be. On my standard QWERTY keyboard the N is one line downand *two" spaces over, but I've never seen the Monotype keyboardand will take your word for it.

That's either a typo, or a quintessentially Englishinsult as a nickname. :)Since "g" is so close to "b" on my keyboard, I'mgoing to guess "typo."Kevin R

Yes, it is a typo (and what's worse is that I reviewed the post twiceand didn't see it)

--"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.â-----------------------------------------------------Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

Post by Robert WoodwardI don't believe any of the stories where random attacks baffles militarycomputers. Or in this particular case, changes the situation fromautomatic defeat to a victory.

"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?""I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that couldprovoke such a question."

Charles Baggage? (IIRC, he had already grasped GIGO).

Typo aside, yes, in response to a parliamentarian who did not understand GIGO. But give the MP credit, at least he took an interest and asked a question. Neither my provincial representative nor my city councilor could do as much.

Post by Robert WoodwardI don't believe any of the stories where random attacks baffles militarycomputers. Or in this particular case, changes the situation fromautomatic defeat to a victory.

"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?""I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that couldprovoke such a question."

Charles Baggage? (IIRC, he had already grasped GIGO).

Typo aside, yes, in response to a parliamentarian who did not understand GIGO. But give the MP credit, at least he took an interest and asked a question. Neither my provincial representative nor my city councilor could do as much.

Post by William Hydeand"I am indebted to you for demonstrating that there is no such thing asunutterable nonsense".

Don't recognize this one; Google wasn't much help as well.

I read it first in one of Clarke's essays. Which one, I no longer recall, but I think he attributed it to someone in the House of Lords.

"Dear Sir", which discusses Clarke's unsolicitedcorrespondents, but no name is given.

For "Unutterable nonsense" one dictionary citesParliament's record Hansard several times, but I'mnot aware of how to search Hansard itself.My own guess is that it's the phrase "utter nonsense"fancied up; if it has a real meaning, it will be morelike "unrepeatable nonsense", which was uttered /to/ mebut which I should not or will not trouble you with.

Then again, you may consider "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh CthulhuR'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" as unutterable nonsense.

Post by Robert WoodwardI don't believe any of the stories where random attacks baffles militarycomputers. Or in this particular case, changes the situation fromautomatic defeat to a victory.

"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?""I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that couldprovoke such a question."

Charles Baggage? (IIRC, he had already grasped GIGO).

Typo aside, yes, in response to a parliamentarian who did not understand GIGO. But give the MP credit, at least he took an interest and asked a question. Neither my provincial representative nor my city councilor could do as much.

Post by William Hydeand"I am indebted to you for demonstrating that there is no such thing asunutterable nonsense".

Don't recognize this one; Google wasn't much help as well.

I read it first in one of Clarke's essays. Which one, I no longer recall, but I think he attributed it to someone in the House of Lords.

"Dear Sir", which discusses Clarke's unsolicitedcorrespondents, but no name is given.For "Unutterable nonsense" one dictionary citesParliament's record Hansard several times, but I'mnot aware of how to search Hansard itself.

<https://hansard.parliament.uk>

3 Nov 1909 appears to be the earliest appearance (note--Hansard issearchable back to 1/1/1800) "If hon. and right hon. Gentlemenopposite have given their assent and approval, reluctant or otherwise,to the purposes and objects to which the Chancellor of the Exchequerproposes to devote this money, then I say that to talk of Socialism inthe Budget seems to me nothing more or less than unutterablenonsense."

Note, it is worthwhile doing this search just to see the interface inoperation--it's quite nice.

Post by Robert CarnegieMy own guess is that it's the phrase "utter nonsense"fancied up; if it has a real meaning, it will be morelike "unrepeatable nonsense", which was uttered /to/ mebut which I should not or will not trouble you with.Then again, you may consider "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh CthulhuR'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" as unutterable nonsense.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

--Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservationinstinct are running screaming.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

I have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

I have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

How are they supposed to do that?

--Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservationinstinct are running screaming.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

I have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

How are they supposed to do that?

If he plays white in one game and black in the other, he cansimply echo the moves.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

I have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

How are they supposed to do that?

If he plays white in one game and black in the other, he cansimply echo the moves.

That doesn't strike me as very smart. What if you are echoing playerA's move against a much better player B? It also seems that player A'smoves would soon be senseless against player B even if they aren'tbetter than A simply because A and B aren't playing the same chess game.

--Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservationinstinct are running screaming.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

I have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

How are they supposed to do that?

If he plays white in one game and black in the other, he cansimply echo the moves.

That doesn't strike me as very smart. What if you are echoing playerA's move against a much better player B? It also seems that player A'smoves would soon be senseless against player B even if they aren'tbetter than A simply because A and B aren't playing the same chess game.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

I have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

How are they supposed to do that?

If he plays white in one game and black in the other, he cansimply echo the moves.

That doesn't strike me as very smart. What if you are echoing playerA's move against a much better player B? It also seems that player A'smoves would soon be senseless against player B even if they aren'tbetter than A simply because A and B aren't playing the same chess game.

Of course they are, they just don't realize it.

And the echoing player either wins one game and loses one game orties both.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

I have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

Reminds me of something I learned many years ago. Those demonstrationswhere a chess master simultaneously plays a number of people, the masterdoesn't remember the history or strategies of each game. When its theremove, he (or she) simply looks at the situation and makes the best movebased on where the pieces are on the board at that time. So he/shelikely wouldn't even realize you were trying to confuse them by making asenseless move.

One's opponents in simultaneous exhibitions make senseless moves all the time. It's about as confusing as night following day.

Post by J. ClarkeI have been told that in such matches the master sometimes plays oneopponent against another.

This would tend to result in a 50% score, whereas most simul givers feel bad if they score less than 80%. I have never scored less than 90 (and I wasn't even a master). Generally, though, the simul giver has the same colour on all boards (almost always white).

There exist a couple of stories in which a non-master gives a two board simul to two masters, invoking that trick. IIRC Kreskin tried such a trick with the incredibly credulous grandmaster Kortchnoi and some other strong player. Google tells me it was American GM Robert Byrne, who was, I speculate, in on it.

Post by William HydeThere exist a couple of stories in which a non-master gives a two boardsimul to two masters, invoking that trick. IIRC Kreskin tried such atrick with the incredibly credulous grandmaster Kortchnoi and some otherstrong player. Google tells me it was American GM Robert Byrne, whowas, I speculate, in on it.

I read a story about Alekhine in which he accepted two offers toplay a postal game with a money bet. Naturally since he was a famousplayer he accepted odds that were against him. And he had White inone game and Black in the other...and wound up playing himself.And then in the endgame, he made a move that looked horrible andsenseless, and the greedy amateurs decided to vary in the hopesof winning both games -- but what looked like a blunder was actuallya brilliant resource, and it was Alekhine who pocketed all the money.

Post by William HydeThere exist a couple of stories in which a non-master gives a two boardsimul to two masters, invoking that trick. IIRC Kreskin tried such atrick with the incredibly credulous grandmaster Kortchnoi and some otherstrong player. Google tells me it was American GM Robert Byrne, whowas, I speculate, in on it.

I read a story about Alekhine in which he accepted two offers toplay a postal game with a money bet. Naturally since he was a famousplayer he accepted odds that were against him. And he had White inone game and Black in the other...and wound up playing himself.And then in the endgame, he made a move that looked horrible andsenseless, and the greedy amateurs decided to vary in the hopesof winning both games -- but what looked like a blunder was actuallya brilliant resource, and it was Alekhine who pocketed all the money.

Alekhine told a lot of stories about himself that were not true, but that one sounds like it might be.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

If you play so badly that all moves baffle you, then perhaps. But then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move that actually accomplishes something.In my earlier years I played many moves that made no sense at all - though not intentionally. I don't recall any of my opponents being baffled. I recall them being happy.William Hyde

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

If you play so badly that all moves baffle you, then perhaps. But then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move that actually accomplishes something.In my earlier years I played many moves that made no sense at all - though not intentionally. I don't recall any of my opponents being baffled. I recall them being happy.William Hyde

Ah ! We played the same people. Happy to trounce us.

I can remember 15-year-old me, at a summer program at GeorgetownUniversity for high school debaters, playing chess with someoneI'd just met, just one of the fellow debaters. We were allhanging around in one of the dorm rooms, somebody had a board,and I took my turn at pushing the wood around. Aside from a periodwhen I was 12-13 years old, when some of my 7th and 8th grade class-mates and I brought pocket sets to school and played while eating lunch,I did not play often. Neither did I read chess books. I would lookat the chess problem in the newspaper sometimes, and I followed theSpassky-Fisher matches that were going on in Iceland while we werein DC. Chess was a bit of a fad that year, but a dorm full ofdebaters, original orators and ex temp speakers would naturally haveits subsets of chess nerds, sf fen, comics fans, politics junkies,military tabletop gamers, Latin students, etc.

I was "developing" my position when some kibbitzer announced thatmy ..defense...?...was "trash." I was surprised. I knew that therewere probably guys in the room who could kick my butt in 10 moves,and, so far as I could tell, I hadn't made any blunders, that Icould see, yet.

It turned out that Joe Expert thought I was playing a defenseassociated with Siegbert Tarrasch, a great player from the late19th, early 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarrasch_Defense

I have no idea where I absorbed whatever principles that ledme to try doing this, or some lousy version of it. I got introuble in the midgame, a not unusual occurrence for me, and,IMS, resigned, with some of the other kids declaiming, "ah,you could have salvaged a draw, at least!" They'd never seenmy pitiful endgame, or they would have agreed my giving upthe chair to someone who might do better was wise!

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

If you play so badly that all moves baffle you, then perhaps. But then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move that actually accomplishes something.In my earlier years I played many moves that made no sense at all - though not intentionally. I don't recall any of my opponents being baffled. I recall them being happy.William Hyde

Ah ! We played the same people. Happy to trounce us.

I can remember 15-year-old me, at a summer program at GeorgetownUniversity for high school debaters, playing chess with someoneI'd just met, just one of the fellow debaters. We were allhanging around in one of the dorm rooms, somebody had a board,and I took my turn at pushing the wood around. Aside from a periodwhen I was 12-13 years old, when some of my 7th and 8th grade class-mates and I brought pocket sets to school and played while eating lunch,I did not play often. Neither did I read chess books. I would lookat the chess problem in the newspaper sometimes, and I followed theSpassky-Fisher matches that were going on in Iceland while we werein DC. Chess was a bit of a fad that year, but a dorm full ofdebaters, original orators and ex temp speakers would naturally haveits subsets of chess nerds, sf fen, comics fans, politics junkies,military tabletop gamers, Latin students, etc.I was "developing" my position when some kibbitzer announced thatmy ..defense...?...was "trash."

I am familiar with this kind of "expert". One who has learned the names and the received wisdom about various openings, and confuses this with an understanding.

A weakish player I met in a tournament long ago never ceased to criticize his opponent's openings. "Look at this", he would say, "look how badly he played the Leningrad Dutch".

But they guy who played the Leningrad Dutch so badly nevertheless beat him. As did most of his opponents, though they mostly played the opening badly.

I was being placed in the role of arbiter because I was much, much, stronger than either and it was assumed that a player of my level absolutely must know the openings well. But I barely knew what the Leningrad Dutch was.

I never knew the openings well. Below master level, I never found that to be a handicap. Far better to invest your time in actually understanding the game itself. But this is a minority opinion.

I was surprised. I knew that there

Post by Kevrobwere probably guys in the room who could kick my butt in 10 moves,and, so far as I could tell, I hadn't made any blunders, that Icould see, yet.It turned out that Joe Expert thought I was playing a defenseassociated with Siegbert Tarrasch, a great player from the late19th, early 20th century.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarrasch_Defense

It's probably a received wisdom case. The Tarrash has been mostly out of favour since about 1910. But there's really nothing wrong with it and ultra-strong players like Spassky have brought it back from time to time, even in world championship play.

Such openings are especially good to play against people like your commentator who "know" it's a poor opening, and play overconfidently against it.

On a far more refined level, the young Fischer seems to have thought there was something wrong with the Caro Kann defense. In ultra-strong events people who never played the Caro were playing it against him. Of course, it didn't take him long to wise up.

Post by KevrobI have no idea where I absorbed whatever principles that ledme to try doing this, or some lousy version of it.

It's a sensible set of moves, played by many people before Dr. Tarrasch, who worked it out in greater detail, popularized it, and fit it into his theoretical scheme. That you played it shows that you were thinking reasonably.

In playing this defense black accepts a permanent weakness, his queen pawn, in return for more active pieces. So it's a question of style, really. Tarrasch always thought that a little extra mobility could compensate for a fixed weakness - it's one of his major contributions to chess theory. Rubenstein and Schlechter devised a system to minimize the freedom and emphasize the weakness, which more or less drove the Tarrasch out of tournament play for a generation.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

If you play so badly that all moves baffle you, then perhaps. But then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move that actually accomplishes something.In my earlier years I played many moves that made no sense at all - though not intentionally. I don't recall any of my opponents being baffled. I recall them being happy.William Hyde

Ah ! We played the same people. Happy to trounce us.

I can remember 15-year-old me, at a summer program at GeorgetownUniversity for high school debaters, playing chess with someoneI'd just met, just one of the fellow debaters. We were allhanging around in one of the dorm rooms, somebody had a board,and I took my turn at pushing the wood around. Aside from a periodwhen I was 12-13 years old, when some of my 7th and 8th grade class-mates and I brought pocket sets to school and played while eating lunch,I did not play often. Neither did I read chess books. I would lookat the chess problem in the newspaper sometimes, and I followed theSpassky-Fisher matches that were going on in Iceland while we werein DC. Chess was a bit of a fad that year, but a dorm full ofdebaters, original orators and ex temp speakers would naturally haveits subsets of chess nerds, sf fen, comics fans, politics junkies,military tabletop gamers, Latin students, etc.I was "developing" my position when some kibbitzer announced thatmy ..defense...?...was "trash."

I am familiar with this kind of "expert". One who has learned the names and the received wisdom about various openings, and confuses this with an understanding.A weakish player I met in a tournament long ago never ceased to criticize his opponent's openings. "Look at this", he would say, "look how badly he played the Leningrad Dutch".But they guy who played the Leningrad Dutch so badly nevertheless beat him. As did most of his opponents, though they mostly played the opening badly.I was being placed in the role of arbiter because I was much, much, stronger than either and it was assumed that a player of my level absolutely must know the openings well. But I barely knew what the Leningrad Dutch was.I never knew the openings well. Below master level, I never found that to be a handicap. Far better to invest your time in actually understanding the game itself. But this is a minority opinion.I was surprised. I knew that there

Post by Kevrobwere probably guys in the room who could kick my butt in 10 moves,and, so far as I could tell, I hadn't made any blunders, that Icould see, yet.It turned out that Joe Expert thought I was playing a defenseassociated with Siegbert Tarrasch, a great player from the late19th, early 20th century.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarrasch_Defense

It's probably a received wisdom case. The Tarrash has been mostly out of favour since about 1910. But there's really nothing wrong with it and ultra-strong players like Spassky have brought it back from time to time, even in world championship play.Such openings are especially good to play against people like your commentator who "know" it's a poor opening, and play overconfidently against it.On a far more refined level, the young Fischer seems to have thought there was something wrong with the Caro Kann defense. In ultra-strong events people who never played the Caro were playing it against him. Of course, it didn't take him long to wise up.

Post by KevrobI have no idea where I absorbed whatever principles that ledme to try doing this, or some lousy version of it.

It's a sensible set of moves, played by many people before Dr. Tarrasch, who worked it out in greater detail, popularized it, and fit it into his theoretical scheme. That you played it shows that you were thinking reasonably.In playing this defense black accepts a permanent weakness, his queen pawn, in return for more active pieces. So it's a question of style, really. Tarrasch always thought that a little extra mobility could compensate for a fixed weakness - it's one of his major contributions to chess theory. Rubenstein and Schlechter devised a system to minimize the freedom and emphasize the weakness, which more or less drove the Tarrasch out of tournament play for a generation.

Thanks, William, for giving me what is probably more credit than I deserved.What peeved me about the "trash" fellow is that he was NOT my opponent, andthat since all in the room were new acquaintances. I was a prettyinexperienced player, and if I had done something clever, I didn't need thissupposed maven tipping off my actual opponent, who might have a practicedcounter to the defense filed away in his brain, that he would then deploy,the possibility that I was following a master's advice being pointed outto him.

The way I was acculturated to chess playing, you never assumed kibitzingwas to be tolerated. If I was playing my best friend Dave at lunch beforewe went out for recess in 8th grade, and my buddy Owen wanted to kibitz,we might let him. We also might suggest he challenge one of the other guyswho played, and worry about his own game!

Heck, some of my uncles played a pretty mean game of checkers/draughts,and I learned pretty early from them to mind my tongue watching them play.

*****

The summer months were when our related families would gather to populatesmall, unheated bungalows near the beach in a Long Island North Shorevillage, on a harbor on the Sound, and board games were a majorafter dark activity, as we sat on the screened-in porches, catchingthe breeze off the water. No air conditioning in those little houses.A radio playing the baseball game or some music in the background?Sure. It was years before we bothered to bring a portable TV with us.Also required: the daily newspapers my Dad brought back from townon his way back from his job, and stacks of library books. Any badweather that kept us off the beach, or from "running through thewoods like a pack of hooligans" [/Mom] or other such outdoorsy pursuitslike playing ball were to be dealt with by reading and playing games.

At our "year-round house" on the South Shore, when I was high schoolboy, I actually read most of "Dune" sitting on the front porch whiletorrential rains battered our village for several days. When calledinside, for a meal or some other reason, I actually was surprised athow wet everything smelled and felt, once I was mentally disconnectedfrom the sands of Arrakis!

There's no front porch where I live, now, but there's a largecovered landing for the back stairs, big enough for a chair,a barbecue grill and a radio. There's a lot of shade from theleaves of many trees. It can serve.

Post by Kevrobtorrential rains battered our village for several days. When calledinside, for a meal or some other reason, I actually was surprised athow wet everything smelled and felt, once I was mentally disconnectedfrom the sands of Arrakis!

I had the opposite experience. I read "Dune" on a dune. Sandbanks provincial part, to be specific, on the north coast of lake Ontario. From some parts of the park you could see only sand dunes, free of vegetation (mostly, I think, because it had until recently been used by the military. My cousin and I sifted the sand for odd little (nonexplosive) leftovers from this period.)

We camped on a dune that had acquired some tree cover as a little shade was required that summer - by now it may simply look like a hill.

To add to the illusion, I don't think it rained the whole time we were there. We returned the next year, and I brought Dune for a reread.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

If you play so badly that all moves baffle you, then perhaps. But then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move that actually accomplishes something.

No, just moves that do not fit the patterns the player knows.This can happen when someone has learned the game and knows someuseful sequences but is not that good yet at analysing positions.Something outside of the patterns one knows can be confusing.

Post by William HydeIn my earlier years I played many moves that made no sense at all - though not intentionally. I don't recall any of my opponents being baffled. I recall them being happy.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

If you play so badly that all moves baffle you, then perhaps. But then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move that actually accomplishes something.

No, just moves that do not fit the patterns the player knows.This can happen when someone has learned the game and knows someuseful sequences but is not that good yet at analysing positions.

The closest match to that description is the type of person I referred to in another post - one who prioritizes the memorization of openings (patterns in this case) over understanding the game. this is fairly rare, as memorizing openings is tedious work.

Such people play very strongly as long as the game stays within their memorized repertoire. Once in a very long while they win without leaving it. But usually the opponent varies from the pattern, or the pattern itself ends. This does not shock or confuse, as it happens nearly every game.

When you exit their "pattern", better to exit with a good move. A senseless one even they might be able to exploit.

My opponent plays a move that makes no sense. I look at it for a while, trying to see what I have missed. Not seeing it, I assume that it's simply a bad move and get on with my plans.

Bad moves are so very common that another bad move simply cannot baffle.

Well, Ok, if a grandmaster plays a bad move against me I might just be baffled. But on a pragmatic basis even there I would have to assume it is bad, and play to exploit it, as I have no chance against a GM unless he or she errs badly.

then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move thatactually accomplishes something.

Post by Gene WirchenkoNo, just moves that do not fit the patterns the player knows.This can happen when someone has learned the game and knows someuseful sequences but is not that good yet at analysing positions.

The closest match to that description is the type of person I referredto in another post - one who prioritizes the memorization of openings(patterns in this case) over understanding the game. this is fairlyrare, as memorizing openings is tedious work.

This figured in a Fritz Leiber(?) story as I recall (not "Midnight ByThe Morphy Watch"). Someone was programming a chess playing AI withall the classic opening moves, and the protag noticed that they wereusing a book with a famously known (in the chess community) typo inthat section..

then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move thatactually accomplishes something.

Post by Gene WirchenkoNo, just moves that do not fit the patterns the player knows.This can happen when someone has learned the game and knows someuseful sequences but is not that good yet at analysing positions.

The closest match to that description is the type of person I referredto in another post - one who prioritizes the memorization of openings(patterns in this case) over understanding the game. this is fairlyrare, as memorizing openings is tedious work.

This figured in a Fritz Leiber(?) story as I recall (not "Midnight ByThe Morphy Watch"). Someone was programming a chess playing AI withall the classic opening moves, and the protag noticed that they wereusing a book with a famously known (in the chess community) typo inthat section..

I don't know about modern chess programs, but back in the day, many had an'opening book' which shortcut playing most well known openings. There werecases where a human player would deliberately do a weird move in timed gamesto get out of the book, forcing the computer to spend more time to considera countermove.

Post by Peter TreiI don't know about modern chess programs, but back in the day, many had an'opening book' which shortcut playing most well known openings. There werecases where a human player would deliberately do a weird move in timed gamesto get out of the book, forcing the computer to spend more time to considera countermove.

This is still a thing even with the top chess-playing/analyzingprograms of today. They essentially have multiple ratings even given aspecific amount of CPU/memory/time, one without any preloaded data andthen one or more with "opening book" and "endgame tablebase".

The problem with doing this is two-fold, even running on fairly modestcomputers (by todays standard) these programs will crush most playerseven without any pre-loaded data and if they do have their "openingbook" getting out of that early often means accepting a worsedisadvantage than just keep on playing enough moves to run out of thebook the normal way.

The main exception is self-play AI programs like AlphaZero wherethere's no separate parts, it's all in the Neural Network and there'sno way to even verify if it is separate or not.

It's not limited to just computers either, chess players are better orworse at various stages of the game and may sometimes try to use thatto their advantage.

For example the current World Chess Champion (Magnus Carlsen) isextremely good at analyzing on the fly and is known to sometimesaccept small theoretical disadvantages to get the opponent out oftheir likely opening book even against opponents on his own level ininternational tournaments.

Humans simply can't have opening books the size used in moderncomputer chess programs memorized so while it still has risks they cansometimes be managed.

then your attempt is superfluous. Better to baffle with a move thatactually accomplishes something.

Post by Gene WirchenkoNo, just moves that do not fit the patterns the player knows.This can happen when someone has learned the game and knows someuseful sequences but is not that good yet at analysing positions.

The closest match to that description is the type of person I referredto in another post - one who prioritizes the memorization of openings(patterns in this case) over understanding the game. this is fairlyrare, as memorizing openings is tedious work.

This figured in a Fritz Leiber(?) story as I recall (not "Midnight ByThe Morphy Watch"). Someone was programming a chess playing AI withall the classic opening moves, and the protag noticed that they wereusing a book with a famously known (in the chess community) typo inthat section..

"The 64-Square Madhouse" (found in the collections _A Pail of Air_ andthe more recent _Day Dark, Night Bright_). IIRC, about all the chessmasters in the story had names that were takeoffs of early 1960sGrandmasters (e.g., an American player by the name of Angler - we knowwho he is supposed to be, don't we).

--"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.-----------------------------------------------------Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

Post by Robert Woodward"The 64-Square Madhouse" (found in the collections _A Pail of Air_ andthe more recent _Day Dark, Night Bright_). IIRC, about all the chessmasters in the story had names that were takeoffs of early 1960sGrandmasters (e.g., an American player by the name of Angler - we knowwho he is supposed to be, don't we).

In fact, someone who knows a little about the history of theWorld Chess Championship can pin down the date of compositionof the story to within a year or two, based on that: in the story,Votbinnik has just won his championship title back from Jahl.So therefore it was written when Botvinnik had just won hischampionship title back from Tal.

And yes, all the alterations are at that level. "Angler" for"Fischer" is a masterpiece of subtlety by comparison.

Post by Robert Woodward"The 64-Square Madhouse" (found in the collections _A Pail of Air_ andthe more recent _Day Dark, Night Bright_). IIRC, about all the chessmasters in the story had names that were takeoffs of early 1960sGrandmasters (e.g., an American player by the name of Angler - we knowwho he is supposed to be, don't we).

In fact, someone who knows a little about the history of theWorld Chess Championship can pin down the date of compositionof the story to within a year or two, based on that: in the story,Votbinnik has just won his championship title back from Jahl.So therefore it was written when Botvinnik had just won hischampionship title back from Tal.And yes, all the alterations are at that level. "Angler" for"Fischer" is a masterpiece of subtlety by comparison.

It's difficult to make a witty alteration of Tartakower, and the problem with making Tal Short, is that then he wouldn't sound Soviet. It would have added a bit of amusement though, given the later career of Nigel Short.

Post by William Hyde"What if I just make a move that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you be baffled?"

It depends on how well you play chess. If not well, such a movemight baffle.

One of the Star Trek novels, I forget which,described Spock's elegant, broadly cautious styleof play, which Kirk usually lost to but oftenbattered through, since Spock spent a lot of time,or chose to, anticipating a more cerebral gamethan he got. But that's the three or fourdimensional game. And there's an episode whereSpock winning a game against the computer provesthe computer has been tampered with. No one shouldbe able to beat it; Spock programmed it.